Serious mistakes associated with Einstein’s <i>E</i> = <i>mc</i><sup>2</sup> equation are brought to light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A thorough scrutiny of Einstein’s derivation of the mass‐energy equivalence (MEE) equation reveals that the MEE equation derivation is based on conceptually as well as mathematically incorrect concepts. The mistaken application of the Lorentz transformation factor, which has now been conclusively proven to be incorrect, as an indispensable mathematical tool has been shown to be crucial. A critical review of the purported interconversions between mass and energy that the MEE principle asserts conclusively proves that the occurrence of such interconversions could take place only through violating the well-established laws of nature—the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass. The theory has also been shown to not be in conformity with the principle of causality. A thorough analysis of the conceptual foundation of E = mc 2 yields a host of conflicting and self-contradictory consequences, providing convincing evidence that E = mc 2 is not the correct equation. It is concluded that the MEE equation cannot be justified to be correct by any physical reasonings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".